03 February 2014

Confusing the Roles of Mayor and MP


The above argument in today's paper just about had me gagging on my weetbix. After taking the time to look at the comments on the website seems like most people are of my opinion. There are still, many that believe we are over governed and local government is the easy scapegoat for the level to get rid of when, in my opinion, if we really had to do this why not get rid of state government. Considering the requests that I have worked on this last week include footpath repair, bike way maintenance, stray cats, rubbish removal and street trees. I wonder if these matters would ever be resolved if we did not have local government. So keep arguing to get rid of local government and you're saying I like bins left in the street, my footpath is OK and will never need repair and when the street dies I won't care. As well I'm happy to sweep my own footpath and never use the library, the swimming pool or a community centre. I like stray dogs and dog poo can just be stepped over.
Given the amount Councillors are paid (about $15/hour) I can't see how anyone could describe this as too much.
But back to the point that Mayor Clyne made; why is this unworkable? Why did previous governments make it illegal to hold the jobs of Mayor and MP? They did this because the potential conflict of interest was simply too great. Thinking of Unley, which encompasses 2 state electorates, do we need less MPs or more Mayors? Not only would this lead to even more MPs but they get a heck of a lot more money than the mayor who gets $60,000/year; I reckon David Pisoni is earning just a little more than this! I can't see the political parties not seeing this as an opportunity for Council elections  being politicized. One of the great things about Unley Council, and probably the vast majority in South Australia, is that members are not elected on their political persuasion and are free to vote on each and every matter as they see fit.

No comments:

Post a Comment